The Belgravia Dispatch: Rumsfeld: Time For An Afghanistan Victory Lap!

October 10, 2006

Rumsfeld: Time For An Afghanistan Victory Lap!

Rumsfeld, writing in the Washington Post on Saturday:

Yet from halfway around the world -- with but a few weeks' notice -- coalition forces were charged with securing a landlocked, mountainous country that history had dubbed the "graveyard" of great powers.
Given the circumstances, it is not surprising that military experts and columnists raised the specter of Vietnam and "quagmires" -- both before and during combat operations. They cited the forbidding terrain, brutal weather and the Soviet Union's total failure.

Within weeks of our launching combat operations, however, the Taliban regime had been defeated, consigning yet another cruel regime to the dustbin of history. Coalition forces took control of Kabul, and since then the Afghan people have fashioned a new constitution and successfully held the first democratic presidential election in their long history.

Now, five years after the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, another signpost has been marked on Afghanistan's long, difficult road to stability: NATO took control of security operations for the entire country on Thursday, as well as the 24 Provincial Reconstruction Teams that are strengthening infrastructure across the nation.

This is an unprecedented moment for the NATO alliance. In 2001 NATO forces were for the first time deployed beyond their traditional European borders. Today the number of troops in Afghanistan from nations besides the United States has reached more than 20,000 -- to add to the approximately 21,000 American troops serving there.

Not all the news about Afghanistan is encouraging. There is, for example, the legitimate worry that increased poppy production could be a destabilizing factor. And rising violence in southern Afghanistan is real.

President Hamid Karzai, speaking with President Bush recently at the White House, acknowledged the difficulties: "Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction. . . . We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. . . . We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is."

The problem, he said, is poverty and extremism. Success requires a strong and capable Afghan government that can provide services and opportunities for all its people.

During the active combat or conventional phase of any war, there are clear signs of progress: battles won, key strategic points taken, enemy forces captured or killed. In the post-battle phase, however, the measure of progress is not as clear -- especially in a war such as the Global War on Terror, which relies so heavily on the development of civic institutions in places that have known little more than war and destitution. [emphasis added]

And now, reality:

The top NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Sunday that if the lives of Afghans don't improve within the next six months, a majority of them could switch their allegiance to the Taliban. Gen. David Richards, a British officer who commands NATO's 32,000 troops, told the Associated Press that he would like to have 2,500 more troops in the south of the country to help speed up reconstruction projects. General Richards said this area, which has seen intense fighting between NATO and Taliban forces, is "broadly stabilized," but if the NATO, US, and Afghan governments don't take this time to start reconstruction projects, 70 percent of the country could decide to back the Taliban. "They will say, 'We do not want the Taliban but then we would rather have that austere and unpleasant life that might involve than another five years of fighting,'" Richards said in an interview.

I'm happy Donald Rumsfeld believes "rising violence in southern Afghanistan is real." That's just swell. But before Rumsfeld gets too carried away with his fifth year anniversary Afghanistan valedictory, he might instead snap back to reality some. There are still battles being won (or lost), key strategic points being taken (or given back), and enemy forces (and indeed, our own) being killed, to use his verbiage. We are still very much at war in Afghanistan, and not in a "post-battle" phase as Rumsfeld risibly scribbles in the Washington Post. But let's put all this aside. Why is our Secretary of Defense wasting time penning such piffle (there is the inevitable mention of schools opened, health care access up by 72%, and other data points that are mostly irrelevant, and conveniently omit, say, that Afghanistan could still be lost, as certain areas in Pakistan have been increasingly), not to mention as Iraq melts down before our eyes? Why is he still in his job? Who will take the Decider aside, and put a stop to the dismal fraud that is Donald Rumsfeld remaining in office? As Andrew Sullivan puts it succintly, and often: Fire. Rumsfeld. Now. My God, even Karl Rove must be able to see the light on this, one would think, no? Oh wait, it would be an admission of failure or some such. Well let me clue you in fellas, the failures are huge, and they are erupting all around us, quite literally of late. They're not big secrets or anything. Let's try to turn things around, instead of going in bunker-mode. To at least tentatively begin the hard work of doing so, get a new Secretary of Defense in office--without further delay.

Posted by Gregory at October 10, 2006 02:39 AM

Comments

While it's quite possible Rumsfeld will never leave [until Bush does], it seems safe to say it's guranteed NOT to happen before the elections. Not unless Rumsfeld chokes on a falafel or some other karmic happening. I'm not sure if that's implicit when you say "without further delay" or not, but I'm afraid it should be...

Posted by: TG at October 10, 2006 03:31 AM | Permalink to this comment

Oh, God, please, no more "Fire. Rumsfeld. Now." Whose opinion do you think you're changing? Did you help put Rumsfeld's boss into office? Is this penance for your sin? It's not working. I admire your ability to realize and admit you were wrong, but do you realize the extent of the damage your support of this man has done? How could you not see in 2000 what a delusional fool this man was? He told you then he wasn't interested in nation-building and still you trusted him to build a democracy in Iraq? He subverted democracy in his own country and you trusted him to build it in the sands of Iraq? Did you not see the rush to war, the stiff-arming of all opposition, the stifling of dissent. Have you not seen that mad rush before and seen how it ended?

Posted by: wtf at October 10, 2006 03:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

One problem with Bush firing Rumsfeld is that Bush has no obvious candidate who would take the position. Seriously, who would want to take over the DoD in the waning days of a lame-duck administration to try to clean up Rumsfeld's and Bush's (and Cheney's) mess?

Posted by: raj at October 10, 2006 12:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

A few thoughts:

1. We could do worse than Rumsfeld. Really. Although on nearly every scale there is a theoretcical absolute worst possible situation beyond which it is not possible to go, this is like zero degrees Kelvin: not seen on Earth. And anyone who wants to bet that the President can't make things worse by going with his gut on a question like who ought to be in charge of the war hasn't been paying any attention at all.

2. Obviously, nothing changes before the midterms, and if Democrats gain in the Senate, the risk of an ugly confirmation battle is too high. Any nominee is going to have to go chapter and verse through the failures of the current Secretary, and lay out plans to fix this or that problem. And it won't be some unhinged moonbat with "BDS" criticizing six years of policy, but the President's own man. It would destroy the Administration.

3. It's troubling, and amusing, to see the role that calls for Rumsfeld's termination plays among disillusioned supporters of the Administration. Sullivan's response to Zakaria is a perfect example -- if only we could get rid of this guy, we could make something out of this mess. My response is to borrow from Yglesias: I'd be happy to buy a $2 million apartment if someone else paid the $2 million. There's no pony. The Administration is a collossal failure. Supporting it, at any point in time, was a mistake. Either Al Gore or John Kerry, both of whom would have presided over divided governments, would have done better by any measure. Why? Because they would have (a) appointed grown-ups, lacking the protection a cult of personality affords for the appointment of cronies and (b) been subject to instant and constant accountability from the other branches and the press. Neither would have had Cheney or Rumsfeld, or anyone like them. John Yoo's views would not have prevailed over Colin Powell's -- to attach the names of persons to ideas. (And this is the bottom line: you people picked a guy who would choose the views of a John Yoo over those of a Colin Powell on the question of how any aspect of a war ought to be waged.)

Posted by: CharleyCarp at October 10, 2006 02:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

So much for those last throes, eh?

Posted by: Sharr at October 10, 2006 07:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

wtf,

I despise everything about the Bush administration - always have. I never voted for him and engaged in debates aplenty with friends and associates about its horrendous policies. (Remember, Zathras?)

And while Greg supported this administration (twice), clearly, he no longer does and is using what influence he has in the blogosphere to encourage change. I find his analysis and commentary about the remarkable incompetence of this administration sound, informative, and helping in even the smallest way to open the eyes of people who still think we're better off with Bush.

I have neither experience nor education in foreign policy or government. Only a deep concern for the dead end road this country is barreling down. I visit this site often precisely because Greg USED to support this administration and its policies. If you haven’t noticed, you are (and have been) preaching to the choir. I suggest you start trying to convert the 33% who don’t think Bush is an abysmal failure. Greg’s firmly in the majority.

Posted by: flitter at October 10, 2006 08:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

Let's see General Richards. what aspect of the Taliban, are people going to flock to, Sharia law, no education for women, stoning
of gays. This is of course the strategy to legitimized the IRA's 30
year campaign. Afghanistan, is hard cold slog, three major wars,
(the last occurring almost entirely in Waziristan,) a few dozen
other campaigns (Tirah, Buna, Malakand, where young Churchill
first saw fire, the anti Faquir campaign in the 30s, should teach us
that. Afghanistan is producing opium, you don't say, really, and under the Taliban they were really that chaste (well maybe as
much as Mark Foley) The fact, that early polls showed how unpopular the campaign in Afghanistan, was through out the Muslim world, does not mean we should abandon that campaign.
Has Hamid Karzai, been a perfect ruler, by no means, then again
even someone as gifted as Shah Massoud, would have had his
faith tested under these circumstances. The historical comparison
with the current day, are very striking. The total annihilation of
the British Kabul garrison, (chronicled in the first Flashman tale,
along with Kipling's, & Henty's many tales) A less disastrous campaign that culminated with the debacle at Maiwand,
Mesopotamia, also was not easy, an afterthought of the Indian Office's anti-German effort campaign, that claimed tens of thousands of lives, just on theroad to Baghdad. The predominance of Indian Colonialadministrators like Arnold Wilson, (the Bremer
of his day)led them to adopt a consciouslyanti-Shia policy, which provoke the tharwa revolt of 1920. A "cutand run" effort that prematurely selected the Sunni Naquib of Baghdad, Sheik Al Ghailani, (yes, his son was the Vichy potentate,that provokedthe farhud against the Jews, in the aftermath of thesecond expedition)
This favoritism of the Sunni over the Shia, led to the quasi-fascistic
delusion of Baathism, and it's converse in the more extreme schools of Twelver Shiasm from where Khomeini, drew his doctrinal support; as well as the larger proportion of the growth
of the Iraqi Communist Party

Posted by: narciso at October 11, 2006 01:55 AM | Permalink to this comment

They will not fire Rumsfeld because confirmation hearings for a replacement would be a political disaster. It's still hard for me to completely believe, but they really don't care, at all, about the effectiveness of their policies or personnel. In fact, their reaction is invariably, when faced with a policy or personnel failure, is to lie about what happened to minimize the political fallout. While that tendency exists in any administration, I've never before seen it be the entire motivating force. But it is now.

Posted by: jayackroyd at October 11, 2006 04:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« North Korean Nuclear Test \| Main \| A Quasi-Failed Test? » October 10, 2006 Rumsfeld: Time For An Afghanistan Victory Lap! Rumsfeld, writing in the Washington Post on Saturday: Yet from halfway around the world -- with but a few weeks' notice -- coalition forces were charged with securing a landlocked, mountainous country that history had dubbed the "graveyard" of great powers. Given the circumstances, it is not surprising that military experts and columnists raised the specter of Vietnam and "quagmires" -- both before and during combat operations. They cited the forbidding terrain, brutal weather and the Soviet Union's total failure. Within weeks of our launching combat operations, however, the Taliban regime had been defeated, consigning yet another cruel regime to the dustbin of history. Coalition forces took control of Kabul, and since then the Afghan people have fashioned a new constitution and successfully held the first democratic presidential election in their long history. Now, five years after the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, another signpost has been marked on Afghanistan's long, difficult road to stability: NATO took control of security operations for the entire country on Thursday, as well as the 24 Provincial Reconstruction Teams that are strengthening infrastructure across the nation. This is an unprecedented moment for the NATO alliance. In 2001 NATO forces were for the first time deployed beyond their traditional European borders. Today the number of troops in Afghanistan from nations besides the United States has reached more than 20,000 -- to add to the approximately 21,000 American troops serving there. Not all the news about Afghanistan is encouraging. There is, for example, the legitimate worry that increased poppy production could be a destabilizing factor. And rising violence in southern Afghanistan is real. President Hamid Karzai, speaking with President Bush recently at the White House, acknowledged the difficulties: "Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction. . . . We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. . . . We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is." The problem, he said, is poverty and extremism. Success requires a strong and capable Afghan government that can provide services and opportunities for all its people. During the active combat or conventional phase of any war, there are clear signs of progress: battles won, key strategic points taken, enemy forces captured or killed. In the post-battle phase, however, the measure of progress is not as clear -- especially in a war such as the Global War on Terror, which relies so heavily on the development of civic institutions in places that have known little more than war and destitution. [emphasis added] And now, reality: The top NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Sunday that if the lives of Afghans don't improve within the next six months, a majority of them could switch their allegiance to the Taliban. Gen. David Richards, a British officer who commands NATO's 32,000 troops, told the Associated Press that he would like to have 2,500 more troops in the south of the country to help speed up reconstruction projects. General Richards said this area, which has seen intense fighting between NATO and Taliban forces, is "broadly stabilized," but if the NATO, US, and Afghan governments don't take this time to start reconstruction projects, 70 percent of the country could decide to back the Taliban. "They will say, 'We do not want the Taliban but then we would rather have that austere and unpleasant life that might involve than another five years of fighting,'" Richards said in an interview. I'm happy Donald Rumsfeld believes "rising violence in southern Afghanistan is real." That's just swell. But before Rumsfeld gets too carried away with his fifth year anniversary Afghanistan valedictory, he might instead snap back to reality some. There are still battles being won (or lost), key strategic points being taken (or given back), and enemy forces (and indeed, our own) being killed, to use his verbiage. We are still very much at war in Afghanistan, and not in a "post-battle" phase as Rumsfeld risibly scribbles in the Washington Post. But let's put all this aside. Why is our Secretary of Defense wasting time penning such piffle (there is the inevitable mention of schools opened, health care access up by 72%, and other data points that are mostly irrelevant, and conveniently omit, say, that Afghanistan could still be lost, as certain areas in Pakistan have been increasingly), not to mention as Iraq melts down before our eyes? Why is he still in his job? Who will take the Decider aside, and put a stop to the dismal fraud that is Donald Rumsfeld remaining in office? As Andrew Sullivan puts it succintly, and often: Fire. Rumsfeld. Now. My God, even Karl Rove must be able to see the light on this, one would think, no? Oh wait, it would be an admission of failure or some such. Well let me clue you in fellas, the failures are huge, and they are erupting all around us, quite literally of late. They're not big secrets or anything. Let's try to turn things around, instead of going in bunker-mode. To at least tentatively begin the hard work of doing so, get a new Secretary of Defense in office--without further delay. Posted by Gregory at October 10, 2006 02:39 AM Comments While it's quite possible Rumsfeld will never leave [until Bush does], it seems safe to say it's guranteed NOT to happen before the elections. Not unless Rumsfeld chokes on a falafel or some other karmic happening. I'm not sure if that's implicit when you say "without further delay" or not, but I'm afraid it should be... Posted by: TG at October 10, 2006 03:31 AM \| Permalink to this comment Oh, God, please, no more "Fire. Rumsfeld. Now." Whose opinion do you think you're changing? Did you help put Rumsfeld's boss into office? Is this penance for your sin? It's not working. I admire your ability to realize and admit you were wrong, but do you realize the extent of the damage your support of this man has done? How could you not see in 2000 what a delusional fool this man was? He told you then he wasn't interested in nation-building and still you trusted him to build a democracy in Iraq? He subverted democracy in his own country and you trusted him to build it in the sands of Iraq? Did you not see the rush to war, the stiff-arming of all opposition, the stifling of dissent. Have you not seen that mad rush before and seen how it ended? Posted by: wtf at October 10, 2006 03:46 AM \| Permalink to this comment One problem with Bush firing Rumsfeld is that Bush has no obvious candidate who would take the position. Seriously, who would want to take over the DoD in the waning days of a lame-duck administration to try to clean up Rumsfeld's and Bush's (and Cheney's) mess? Posted by: raj at October 10, 2006 12:41 PM \| Permalink to this comment A few thoughts: 1. We could do worse than Rumsfeld. Really. Although on nearly every scale there is a theoretcical absolute worst possible situation beyond which it is not possible to go, this is like zero degrees Kelvin: not seen on Earth. And anyone who wants to bet that the President can't make things worse by going with his gut on a question like who ought to be in charge of the war hasn't been paying any attention at all. 2. Obviously, nothing changes before the midterms, and if Democrats gain in the Senate, the risk of an ugly confirmation battle is too high. Any nominee is going to have to go chapter and verse through the failures of the current Secretary, and lay out plans to fix this or that problem. And it won't be some unhinged moonbat with "BDS" criticizing six years of policy, but the President's own man. It would destroy the Administration. 3. It's troubling, and amusing, to see the role that calls for Rumsfeld's termination plays among disillusioned supporters of the Administration. Sullivan's response to Zakaria is a perfect example -- if only we could get rid of this guy, we could make something out of this mess. My response is to borrow from Yglesias: I'd be happy to buy a $2 million apartment if someone else paid the $2 million. There's no pony. The Administration is a collossal failure. Supporting it, at any point in time, was a mistake. Either Al Gore or John Kerry, both of whom would have presided over divided governments, would have done better by any measure. Why? Because they would have (a) appointed grown-ups, lacking the protection a cult of personality affords for the appointment of cronies and (b) been subject to instant and constant accountability from the other branches and the press. Neither would have had Cheney or Rumsfeld, or anyone like them. John Yoo's views would not have prevailed over Colin Powell's -- to attach the names of persons to ideas. (And this is the bottom line: you people picked a guy who would choose the views of a John Yoo over those of a Colin Powell on the question of how any aspect of a war ought to be waged.) Posted by: CharleyCarp at October 10, 2006 02:09 PM \| Permalink to this comment So much for those last throes, eh? Posted by: Sharr at October 10, 2006 07:24 PM \| Permalink to this comment wtf, I despise everything about the Bush administration - always have. I never voted for him and engaged in debates aplenty with friends and associates about its horrendous policies. (Remember, Zathras?) And while Greg supported this administration (twice), clearly, he no longer does and is using what influence he has in the blogosphere to encourage change. I find his analysis and commentary about the remarkable incompetence of this administration sound, informative, and helping in even the smallest way to open the eyes of people who still think we're better off with Bush. I have neither experience nor education in foreign policy or government. Only a deep concern for the dead end road this country is barreling down. I visit this site often precisely because Greg USED to support this administration and its policies. If you haven’t noticed, you are (and have been) preaching to the choir. I suggest you start trying to convert the 33% who don’t think Bush is an abysmal failure. Greg’s firmly in the majority. Posted by: flitter at October 10, 2006 08:32 PM \| Permalink to this comment Let's see General Richards. what aspect of the Taliban, are people going to flock to, Sharia law, no education for women, stoning of gays. This is of course the strategy to legitimized the IRA's 30 year campaign. Afghanistan, is hard cold slog, three major wars, (the last occurring almost entirely in Waziristan,) a few dozen other campaigns (Tirah, Buna, Malakand, where young Churchill first saw fire, the anti Faquir campaign in the 30s, should teach us that. Afghanistan is producing opium, you don't say, really, and under the Taliban they were really that chaste (well maybe as much as Mark Foley) The fact, that early polls showed how unpopular the campaign in Afghanistan, was through out the Muslim world, does not mean we should abandon that campaign. Has Hamid Karzai, been a perfect ruler, by no means, then again even someone as gifted as Shah Massoud, would have had his faith tested under these circumstances. The historical comparison with the current day, are very striking. The total annihilation of the British Kabul garrison, (chronicled in the first Flashman tale, along with Kipling's, & Henty's many tales) A less disastrous campaign that culminated with the debacle at Maiwand, Mesopotamia, also was not easy, an afterthought of the Indian Office's anti-German effort campaign, that claimed tens of thousands of lives, just on theroad to Baghdad. The predominance of Indian Colonialadministrators like Arnold Wilson, (the Bremer of his day)led them to adopt a consciouslyanti-Shia policy, which provoke the tharwa revolt of 1920. A "cutand run" effort that prematurely selected the Sunni Naquib of Baghdad, Sheik Al Ghailani, (yes, his son was the Vichy potentate,that provokedthe farhud against the Jews, in the aftermath of thesecond expedition) This favoritism of the Sunni over the Shia, led to the quasi-fascistic delusion of Baathism, and it's converse in the more extreme schools of Twelver Shiasm from where Khomeini, drew his doctrinal support; as well as the larger proportion of the growth of the Iraqi Communist Party Posted by: narciso at October 11, 2006 01:55 AM \| Permalink to this comment They will not fire Rumsfeld because confirmation hearings for a replacement would be a political disaster. It's still hard for me to completely believe, but they really don't care, at all, about the effectiveness of their policies or personnel. In fact, their reaction is invariably, when faced with a policy or personnel failure, is to lie about what happened to minimize the political fallout. While that tendency exists in any administration, I've never before seen it be the entire motivating force. But it is now. Posted by: jayackroyd at October 11, 2006 04:25 PM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Honorary Chair--American Appeasement Blogs" --Hugh Hewitt Recent Entries McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance? Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice Archives August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch